Jim Burleson
Compromise has gotten a bad name. Nowadays everyone seems to think it means one side selling out, or both sides selling out. But true compromise involves each side prioritizing their objectives, trying to see the merits of the other side’s argument, and being willing to give a little so that both sides can be happy with an approximation of their desires instead of utter disappointment.
Nowadays we seem to be presented with nothing but Hobson’s choices: this bad option or nothing at all, this bad option or something even worse.
This seems to be especially true of issues involving the environment and the development of natural resources. We’re continually presented with a choice between the preservation of pristine natural beauty and the reckless exploitation of the landscape leading to total desecration.
This is a false dichotomy. There are many other options, ones that lie between the two extremes, and we could find an acceptable solution if we were willing to be reasonable and realistic.
Too often, however, our elected leaders at the state and federal levels – the ones whose very purpose is to represent us all and reconcile our opposing views – resort to pandering to one side or the other, supporting absolutist positions and encouraging obstructionism.
This may be good politics, but it’s not leadership.
Fitting the pattern perfectly
The debate over plans for the development of energy resources on Otero Mesa fits this pattern perfectly.
Environmentalists insist that this awe-inspiring grassland with its unique flora and fauna should be protected from the depredations of greedy capitalists, and who can argue with that? Representatives of oil and gas interests seek to tap the reserves that lie below, for their own profit and for the benefit of American consumers, and their arguments in support of their position are also compelling.
The problem is not that these two positions are irreconcilable, but that our leaders are not making sufficient effort to reconcile them.
Former Governor Bill Richardson placed a moratorium on new development on Otero Mesa, and Senators Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall hope to have the area designated as a federal wilderness area, thereby prohibiting all development.
But here’s the thing. Otero Mesa covers 2,400 square miles, over a million acres of public land – land that belongs to all New Mexicans and all Americans. Are we expected to believe that no small fraction of this land can be made accessible to energy developers and energy consumers so that their interests can be accommodated too? Are we expected to believe that there is no possible compromise between over preservation and overdevelopment?
Otero Mesa reserves could make a significant contribution
New Mexico has tremendous reserves of coal and natural gas, sizable reserves of oil, and the potential for wind, solar, and geothermal energy production – enough that we can export the surplus to states that lack our energy wealth. The reserves under Otero Mesa are part of that mix. But what value do these resources have if we refuse to develop them?
With the uprisings in the Middle East and our state and national economies languishing, secure and steady access to abundant supplies of energy is more important now than ever. Development of the Otero Mesa reserves could make a significant contribution to our nation’s energy independence and the revitalization of our state and national economies.
This is not an either/or choice. We do not have to sacrifice the beauty of Otero Mesa to develop its energy reserves. We do not have to forgo that development in order to preserve its beauty. One does not preclude the other. All we need is leadership to bring the two sides together.
Burleson is state chairman of the New Mexico Energy forum, a statewide pro-energy grassroots organization that advocates for all forms of energy, especially sources produced in New Mexico and exported to America’s consumers.